The case arises out of the federal government's investigation of New York attorney Robert Simels for conspiracy to obstruct justice. As part of its investigation, the government asked a judge for authorization to wiretap conversations between Simels and his client. The Wiretap Act requires that intercepts be "minimized," meaning the government can only capture conversations relevant to the ongoing criminal investigation. The judge issued the wiretap but required the government to contemporaneously minimize the communications it was intercepting. Later, a different judge found the government failed to comply with the court's order and suppressed the wiretaps, preventing the government from using them at trial. The court suppressed under 18 U.S.C. § 2515, which says that when a communication has been illegally intercepted in violation of the Wiretap Act, "no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial."

After Simels testified in his own defense at trial, the government asked the judge for permission to play the suppressed wiretap recordings to the jury, intending to show that Simels had testified inconsistently with what he had said on the recordings. Despite the clear prohibition against the use of illegally intercepted communications in any trial, the judge nonetheless ruled that the Wiretap Act contained an implicit exception that allowed the government to use an illegally intercepted communication to impeach (or discredit) a witness. Simels was ultimately convicted, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected his argument that the judge was wrong in allowing the jury to hear the illegally intercepted communications.

In our brief to the Supreme Court, we argue that a judicially-created impeachment exception to the Wiretap Act not only contravenes the plain text of 18 U.S.C. § 2515, which contains no impeachment exception, but also goes against Supreme Court precedent governing how to interpret statutes. Most importantly, allowing exceptions to the Wiretap Act's otherwise absolute bar against the use of illegally obtained wiretap evidence will only continue the growing privacy intrusions caused by wiretaps.

In the ten years since the passage of the PATRIOT Act, the number of wiretap authorizations has almost doubled.1 And the estimated2 number of people who are being wiretapped has increased as well.

Meanwhile, the percentage of intercepts considered "incriminating" is decreasing.

So has the percentage of intercepts resulting in actual convictions.

And one last alarming statistic stands out: between 2001 and 2010, while there were 19,282 wiretaps authorized, only three(!) wiretap applications were denied.3 The conclusion is simple: more people and conversations not connected to criminal activity are being recorded with little judicial scrutiny. Allowing courts to create exceptions to the strong privacy protections in the Wiretap Act only encourages this dangerous trend. While the lower court should be applauded for holding the government accountable to the minimization requirements of the Wiretap Act, it nonetheless aided the government in defeating privacy by allowing it to play to the jury an illegally obtained recording. So despite breaking the cookie jar, the government gets to have its cake and eat it too.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will grant certiorari and restore the strong protection in the plain text of the Wiretap Act. And if courts are concerned that litigants can get away with perjury absent an impeachment exception to the Wiretap Act, the solution is for Congress to amend the law, not for judges to invent exceptions to the Wiretap Act out of whole cloth—particularly when these invented exceptions only lead to greater privacy risks to innocent individuals.

Related Updates

Today Google launched a new version of its Chrome browser with what they call an "ad filter"—which means that it sometimes blocks ads but is not an "ad blocker." EFF welcomes the elimination of the worst ad formats. But Google's approach here is a band-aid response to the crisis of...

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Privacy Office, and Office of Field Operations recently invited privacy stakeholders—including EFF and the ACLU of Northern California—to participate in a briefing and update on how the CBP is implementing its Biometric Entry/Exit Program. As we’ve written ...

San Francisco, California—Face recognition—fast becoming law enforcement’s surveillance tool of choice—is being implemented with little oversight or privacy protections, leading to faulty systems that will disproportionately impact people of color and may implicate innocent people for crimes they didn’t commit, says an Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) ...

It should not be surprising that arguably the biggest mistake in Internet policy history is going to invoke a vast political response. Since the FCC repealed federal Open Internet Order in December, many states have attempted to fill the void. With a new bill that reinstates net neutrality protections, Oregon...

Last month, Congress reauthorized Section 702, the controversial law the NSA uses to conduct some of its most invasive electronic surveillance. With Section 702 set to expire, Congress had a golden opportunity to fix the worst flaws in the NSA’s surveillance programs and protect Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights...

President Donald Trump’s first State of the Union address last night was remarkable for two reasons: for what he said, and for what he didn’t say. The president took enormous pride last night in claiming to have helped “extinguish ISIS from the face of the Earth.” But he failed to...

State agencies in California are collecting and using more data now than they ever, and much of this data includes very personal information about California residents. This presents a challenge for agencies and the courts—how to make government-held data that’s indisputably of...

It’s Spain's turn to take a closer look at the practices of their local Internet companies, and how they treat their customers’ personal data. Spain's ¿Quien Defiende Tus Datos? (Who Defends Your Data?) is a project of ETICAS Foundation, and is part of a region-wide initiative by leading...

It’s Spain's turn to take a closer look at the practices of their local Internet companies, and how they treat their customers’ personal data. Spain's ¿Quien Defiende Tus Datos? (Who Defends Your Data?) is a project of ETICAS Foundation, and is part of a region-wide initiative by leading...